Slashdot Mirror
Christopher Nolan Returns Kubrick Sci-Fi Masterpiece '2001: A Space Odyssey' To Its Original Glory (latimes.com)
LA Times' Kenneth Turan traces Christopher Nolan's meticulous restoration of Kubrick's masterpiece to its 70-mm glory: Christopher Nolan wants to show me something interesting. Something beautiful and exceptional, something that changed his life when he was a boy. It's also something that Nolan, one of the most accomplished and successful of contemporary filmmakers, has persuaded Warner Bros. to share with the world both at the upcoming Cannes Film Festival and then in theaters nationwide, but in a way that boldly deviates from standard practice.
For what is being cued up in a small, hidden-away screening room in an unmarked building in Burbank is a brand new 70-mm reel of film of one of the most significant and influential motion pictures ever made, Stanley Kubrick's 1968 science-fiction epic "2001: A Space Odyssey." Yes, you read that right. Not a digital anything, an actual reel of film that was for all intents and purposes identical to the one Nolan saw as a child and Kubrick himself would have looked at when the film was new half a century ago.
For what is being cued up in a small, hidden-away screening room in an unmarked building in Burbank is a brand new 70-mm reel of film of one of the most significant and influential motion pictures ever made, Stanley Kubrick's 1968 science-fiction epic "2001: A Space Odyssey." Yes, you read that right. Not a digital anything, an actual reel of film that was for all intents and purposes identical to the one Nolan saw as a child and Kubrick himself would have looked at when the film was new half a century ago.
It looks much better on vinyl.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
It looks much better on vinyl.
It's really obscure, you've probably never heard/seen it before...
Now where's the 4K torrent of that beauty?
Too bad the movie sucks. It's one of the most overrated movies of all time. It's slow, boring, and non-sensical.
It's a Kubric film, so if you turn up the volume you can hear him softly masturbating throughout each long, drawn out scene.
It's based on Clarke's work, so you may as well turn it off half way through and make up your own ending. You'll get a better result than Clarke, and you'll get it much sooner.
Oh, look! Here come the zealots to tell me how I'm too stupid to "get" it, how the scenes at the end make sense if you take acid while lobotomizing yourself, and how the grand imagery and fairly accurate depictions of space somehow make a turd into a diamond. Nope, sorry.
Hey Kubrick! Are you ever gonna get around to writing the second half of Full Metal Jacket? I like what I saw, but the projectionist swapped in a different film halfway through. Strangely, this mistake has been repeated on every video/DVD/etc. release I've seen so far. If you need some help finishing, maybe give John Kricfalusi a call, he's known for timely work!
Actually it was in Super Panavision 70, you could fangle SP70 to show on Cinerama projectors, but it wasn't filmed with a triple camera setup.
2001 still most compelling sci-fi movie ever made. Haters can't stand the long cut scenes etc., but then go watch a (so fake its painful to watch) CGI Midtown fall down in 'new' way for Avengers 57 or whatever.
If you're not watching it on a 1936 343-line 9" RCA RR-359 receiver then you're not seeing it the way Kubrick originally intended.
The original was in Cinerama.
They're not mutually exclusive: Wikipedia says:
The less wide but still spectacular Super Panavision 70 was used to film the Cinerama presentations [...] 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), which also featured scenes shot in Todd-AO and MCS-70 [...]
IMDb also lists the negative format as "65 mm (Eastman 50T 5251)".
Since the film was shot and mastered in 70 mm, it seems reasonable enough to restore it to 70 mm. Unlike 3-screen Cinerama, there are actually still theaters that can project 70 mm analog.
I might give it a pass in my local 70 mm theater though... some years ago they replaced their screen, adding a silver coating to reflect more light for digital stereoscopic 3D projection, but ever since, analog projection has suffered from noticeable "hot spotting" (not a problem with digital projection for some reason). Fortunately, unlike Nolan, I have no problems with digital projection. :-)
I saw this when it first came out, as an adult and fan of SciFi. I came away secure in the knowledge that I understood the point of the movie every bit as completely as Kubrick - which was not at all. Nice visuals for the time. A plot would have been a nice touch.
I remember the first time I saw 2001. I was at my grandmothers place and it was on cable. I didn't see it from the begining, I came in on the star gate scene. I was sitting there thinking WTF am I watching? I liked it. Then came the hotel scene, then the star child scene. Even eventually after watching the whole movie I still didn't get it. It wasn't until I read the book that it made any sense. When ever I read 2001 I visualize it as the movie because I can't think of anything better. I even imagine Heywood Floyd portrayed by Roy Scheider.
It is mostly Nietzsche's _Also Sprach Zarathustra_, and Clarke and Kubrick knew it.
The opening music isn't an accident.
for what Wikipedia's worth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thus_Spoke_Zarathustra): " More specifically, this note related to the concept of the eternal recurrence, which is, by Nietzsche's admission, the central idea of Zarathustra; this idea occurred to him by a **"pyramidal block of stone"** on the shores of Lake Silvaplana in the Upper Engadine, "
"Another singular feature of Zarathustra, first presented in the prologue, is the designation of human beings as a transition between apes and the "Übermensch" "
There's the plot. HAL 9000 is humanity's failure at forcing the ubermensch.
"At any rate, it is by Zarathustra's transfiguration that he embraces eternity, that he at last ascertains "the supreme will to power".[6] " The book makes this more clear. Clarke and Kubrick agree that both co-wrote the book and film.
Wikipedia editor: "The book embodies a number of innovative poetical and rhetorical methods of expression."
As did the film---complex, rhetorical and unusual and non-literal.
When the physical film is that old, making a decent looking copy is HARD. Making a good-looking 70mm print of the thing was a LOT of work.
A thousand pounds of wood moving at 300 feet per minute. Don't get in the way.
The advanced AI, daily spaceflight with established lunar colony and space hotels, none of that came to pass by 2001 (or has even yet).
But during the video phone call to his daughter (played by Kubrick's daughter), Heywood Floyd asks her what she wants for her birthday.
Her reply: "A Bush Baby"
Which is exactly what the US got for a president in 2001. I shit you not.
It actually kind of is available on vinyl. Ok, it's not really vinyl, but these discs were apparently stamped on more or less standard phonographic record manufacturing equipment. See also CED...
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
I am sort of middle-ground. I do think the movie is overrated and it is one of my least favourite Kubrick movies (my favourite are Dr. Strangelove, Barry Lyndon, Clockwork Orange - probably in that order), but I can appreciate how it is ground-braking and visually (and audibly) stunning - especially in its day, but remarkably holding up. If it were not for 2 needlessly long sequences: the start with the apes, and the approaching the monolith psychedelia, as well as a much more cryptic than required and tiring ending, I bet everyone would be able to appreciate it. At least the problem with the cryptic ending can be alleviated without needing to read the book: just watch the sequel "2010: The year we make contact". It is a more mainstream movie, it doesn't try to be a masterpiece, however it explains everything that happened in 2001 and it is a decent film in its own right.
So, not a turd, but neither the flawless diamond it is portrayed. I mean. if there are scenes that seriously bore a person like me who e.g. considers a Mussorgsky symphony exciting throughout, it should at least be considered an "uneven" or "flawed" movie, no matter how good it was in parts.
Of course art is always a matter of taste...
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Wait, what? I don't think that is what they died for. Not that I was there or anything.
I loved the camera work and cuts in Interstellar. Same with the soundtrack.
What would it take to convince Chris Nolan to take on Clarke's Rama books and transfer to the big screen?
Can you imagine seeing the inside of the Rama spacecraft on an IMAX screen?
It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
Star Trek The Motion Picture tried to match the pacing. The series did not retain that slow pace. Most will agree that it is too slow.
That said, we are on the far side of history from this film. Much of the awe and wonder is passé, we've seen it so many times before. Many of the technological advances of the film have already been surpassed in this decade.
In addition, the artistic and ambiguous ending has already been brought closer to reality in other media, tales, and plotlines. It is more interesting now as a historical piece to give us insight into the limitations of the imaginations of previous generations.
That's the short length version. It was developed concurrently with the novel. They actually ended up filming two hundred times as much footage as was in the final movie.
https://inktank.fi/17-little-k...
"Many theater owners had observed increasing numbers of young adults attending the film, who were especially enthusiastic about watching the ‘Star Gate’ sequence under the influence of psychotropic drugs. "
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
The approved method was to smoke a lot of reefer in the parking lot, and eat a couple of brownies. About the time the smoke was wearing off and Keir Dullea's pupils stopped dialating, the brownies were really fully kicking in for the "My God, it's full of stars" bit.
I remember the very very first time I saw it (no brownies as yet), I was the only person in the theatre who had read the book already. I remember narrating (as best I could) "what the fuck is going on?" for the people around me.
The point is that is was specifically shot to be seen in Cinerama (for younger readers, the Imax of its day), which gave it a jaw-dropping 3D effect. Seen on an ordinary (if widescreen) cinema screen - or worse, TV - it simply loses all its impact.
OK, I can see Nolan's point about the benefits of an analog process that captures light 1:1 by directly transferring it to a medium. But the rub is in the playback of that medium, because that always introduces flaws and errors in the recreation.
For example, I absolutely hated going to most movie theaters 10 years ago because I was sure to run into images out of focus, color lamps misaligned, scratches in the film, stutter in the playback, limitations in sound reproduction, etc. A digital projection system produces a film that is just amazingly more stable and overall enjoyable by a factor of 10 over the old movie projection systems.
But sure, if I could see a fresh 70mm print on a calibrated projector, that would be worth some money. It's similar to the IMAX experience. I just love the opening of Dark Knight in an IMAX theater, where the film just throws you right into an IMAX helicopter shot, bam! You can literally feel your body slump forward. That's an awesome effect.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
I was thinking along the lines of how some music was mixed to sound good on over AM on a cheap transistor radio (where "good" == "almost acceptable if you're stoned") but you've hit the nail on the head far better than I could. Bravo.
P.S. That thing's huge. Is the bottom half where you store the coal?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
We are at least 3/4 of the way there. In 50 years they won't even know what 2001 is/was. They may think it's a documentary.